Saudi Arabia Airlines and Brenda Betia v.

Ma. Jopette Rebesencio, et al.

GR No: 198587 Jan.14,2015 Leonen, J.
SUMMARY: Various flight attendants got pregnant while working for Saudi Arabia
Airlines, to which they requested for Maternity leaves. Apparently there was a recently
passed Unified Employment Contracts which allowed for them to be terminated should
they ever be pregnant due to lack of physical fitness. The flight attendants were made to
resign upon threat of losing any benefits they might have should they have resigned, and
thus petition for illegal dismissal; Petitioner Airlines claim that the Labor Arbiter and
NLRC do not have jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE: Labor Contracts are a matter of Public Policy, and thus Philippine laws
clearly find application in this case.

Dale Tuddleezy | Law 113 | Group 2

FACTS:
1) Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines is a
foreign corporation established and existing
under the Royal Decree No. M/24 of Jeddah,
who hired Respondents as flight attendants.
After undergoing seminars required by the
Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration for deployment overseas, as
well as training modules offered by Saudia,
Respondents became Temporary and then
eventually Permanent Flight Attendants; they
entered into the necessary Cabin Attendant
Contracts with Saudi.
2) Respondents were released from service on
separate dates in 2006; claimed that such
release was illegal since the basis of
termination of contract was solely because they
were pregnant. They claim that they had
informed Saudia of their respective
pregnancies and had gone through the
necessary procedures to process their
maternity leaves and while initially, Saudia had
given its approval, they ultimately reneged and
rather required them to file for resignation.
5)November 8,2007 - Respondents filed a
Complaint with the Labor Arbiter against
Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and
for underpayment, along with moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Petitioner Airlines contests the Labor Arbiter’s
jurisdiction, as the contract’s points referred to
foreign law and that Respondents had no cause
of action since they already voluntarily
resigned.
6) Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint, but on appeal the NLRC reversed
the Labor Arbiter’s decision and denied
Petitioner Airlines’ Motion for Reconsideration,
hence the current appeal.
RELEVANT ISSUE:
WON the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC has
jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Airlines and
apply Philippine jurisdiction over the dispute?
YES. Summons were validly served on
Saudia and jurisdiction over it validly
acquired.

3) Respondents claim that Petitioner Airlines

threatened that if they would not resign, they
would be terminated along with loss of
benefits, separation pay, and ticket discount
entitlements; they anchored such on its
“Unified Employment Contract for Female
Cabin Attendants" which provides that “ if the
Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any time
during the term of this contract, this shall render
her employment contract as void and she will be
terminated due to lack of medical fitness. “
RATIO:  Furthermore, contracts relating to labor
 No doubt that the pleadings were served to and employment are impressed with public
Petitioner Airlines through their counsel, interest. Article 1700 of the Civil Code
however they claim that the NLRC and provides that "[t]he relation between
Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction since capital and labor are not merely
summons were served to Saudi Airlines contractual. They are so impressed with
Manila and not to them, Saudi Airlines public interest that labor contracts must
Jeddah. Saudi Airlines Manila was neither a yield to the common good.
party to the Cabin attendant contracts nor  Pakistan Airlines Ruling: relationship is
funded the Respondents, and it was to much affected with public interest and that
Saudi Jeddah that they filed their the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and
resignations. Court ruled however that b y regulations cannot be rendered illusory by
its own admission, Saudia, while a foreign the parties agreeing upon some other law to
corporation, has a Philippine office, and govern their relationship.
that under the Foreign Investments act of As the present dispute relates to (what the
1991, they are a foreign corporation doing respondents allege to be) the illegal
business in the Phils and therefore are termination of respondents' employment, this
subject to Philippine jurisdiction. case is immutably a matter of public interest
and public policy. Consistent with clear
 Petitioner Airlines also asserts that the pronouncements in law and jurisprudence,
Cabin Attendant Contracts require the Philippine laws properly find application in and
application of the laws of Saudi Arabia govern this case.
rather than those of the Philippines. It DISPOSITIVE:
claims that the difficulty of ascertaining
foreign law calls into operation the Appealed Decision is Affirmed, case is remanded
principle of forum non conveniens, thereby for a detailed computation of the amount to
rendering improper the exercise of be paid by Saudi Airlines.
jurisdiction by Philippine tribunals.
 Court: Forum non conveniens finds no
application and does not operate to divest
Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to
require the application of foreign law.
Though Article 1306 of the Civil Code
provides that Parties may stipulate terms
they may deem convenient, Philippine
tribunals may not lose sight of
considerations of law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy that
underlie the contract.
 Article II, Sections 1 and 14 of the 1987
Constitution ensures the equal protection
of persons, and the equality between men
and women. Though pregnancy does
present physical limitations that may
render difficult the performance of
functions associated with being a flight
attendant, it would be the height of iniquity
to view pregnancy as a disability so
permanent and immutable that, it must
entail the termination of one's employment.